--- Guest blogger today---ML has a few things she'd like to say.
Strangely reminiscent of what I said below, but much better worded and
coherent. Enjoy. Hell, she even titled her piece too...she should get
bonus points.
Gay Marriage – The Hot Topic of 2004
You can’t turn on talk show radio or read a news paper without
listening to or reading about at least one issue surrounding gay
marriage. It is the hot, “in†topic for this Presidential election
year of 2004. In the Opinion section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune
today there were three Letters from Readers with opinions on the
subject of gay marriage. During the program All Things Considered on
National Public Radio two guests and several callers discussed the
arguments for and against same-sex marriage within the gay community.
Earlier on Minnesota Public Radio there was an hour-long program with
one guest speaking to the topic of an alternative word to
“marriage†that can be used in the public forum that will cause
less division and consternation and encompass all of society. The
answer to the question posed on today’s segment of Midmorning on MPR
is yes. Actually we can save the word “marriage†and continue to
use it in a more appropriate context. In today’s society, the word
marriage is used to encompass both civil and religious unions. Marriage
describes both a couple’s state sanctioned rights, such as tax breaks
for families and inheritance benefits, and a couple’s participation
in certain religious ceremonies. Herein lies the problem. The United
States is based on the idea of the separation of church and state. This
was the reason that many of our fore- parents left their homelands and
began life anew in the what was later to become the United States of
America – separating church laws and beliefs from the laws that would
govern the people. Religious laws were not to be transferred to society
as a whole. In Europe, religions such as the Church of England and the
Roman Catholic Church were quite intertwined. Many Europeans believed
that it was the clergy’s role to see to the spiritual well-being of
its members and it was the government’s role to oversee the
well-being of it citizens. Clergy should not be meddling in affairs of
the state. This ideology of church/state separation is reflected in our
Constitution.
The popular definition of the word “marriage†has no separation of
church and state. A marriage can take place in a religious ceremony or
a civil ceremony. I propose separating these two ceremonies, as is
customary in Europe and other societies, and call one civil union and
the other marriage. Marriage can be defined by religious customs and
all citizens of the United States would have the religious freedom of
choice. Civil union would bestow secular benefits, marriage would
bestow spiritual benefits. Should the President of the United States be
putting forth religious arguments for the denial of gay marriage or
further to amend the United States Constitution when he or she is
entrusted to ensure the separation of church and state? The President
is a civilly elected official of government. His or her religious
beliefs are a private issue. They certainly should not be the platform
for change in our federal Constitution. The argument of marriage being
the province of one man and one woman is a religious concept. Separate
the two for all people - civil unions for legal ceremonies and marriage
for religious ceremonies and there would be a lot less contention. As
our fore-parents knew, separation of church and state advances another
principle that our country is based on - equal rights for all citizens.
One of the principle tenets of social conservatives is family values.
There are over 1,000,000 children of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered parents. Those children are not getting the same legal
protection and benefits as the children of heterosexual couples.
Discrimination of any child is not a family value. All children of our
nation should enjoy equal benefits and protection under the law. If
protecting the family unit is of utmost importance, then gay marriage
should be allowed by law thus ensuring legal protection for all our
children. If monogamy is also a strong, stabilizing family and societal
value, then it would be to our nation’s benefit to allow gay couples
to marry. The greater the number of stabilizing monogamous marriages in
this country, the stronger our nation will be. Our nation will be
strengthened when gay couples are encouraged to marry and create
families. Where are the family values when heterosexual couples get
married and then divorce within hours of the marriage ceremony? How is
it that gay couples, committed to one another, are denied the right to
marry, but heterosexual couples are allowed such flagrant disregard of
societal or family values? It is good for this country that gay
marriage be such a social, legal and political hot topic in 2004.
Change rarely happens smoothly, it is rarely painless, but change does
happen and it will happen in the case of gay marriage. Within the next
twenty years gay couples will be granted the same right of marriage or
civil union (if legal and religious ceremonies are separated) that will
give all couples equal right under the law. --- Mary Lynn Collins